One shouldn't allow their fear of a "God" prevent them from embracing the reality that parts of us must have been designed, if not all of us. We are here regardless of if were were designed or evolved so what is there to fear. To assume "God" is evil in s ome way is probably an irrational fear.

Thank you for inserting "probably" into your homespun going-nowhere guesswork.

The main reasons atheists think there is nothing to fear, is that we are probably inconsequential, and the ramifications of us doing anything "wrong" are also inconsequential.

If God does exist, then most religions say that you burn in hell, if you (a) don't figure out your karma (b) don't pray to mecca (c) dont accept Jesus Christ (d) etc, so there is something to fear if the incredibly wise wankers on this planet are correct. The person who you are deriving your cut & paste factoids from, has the agenda of converting us to Jesuth Chritht, or we will burn in hell.

Most random mutations are actually detrimental to the organism thus rather then leading to more complexity and evolution to other species, it leads to offspring who are have some problems. Genes are essentially being broke or blown up in most random mutations, which could possibly lead to some trait that is advantageous, such as the sickle cell in people can prevent people from getting malaria, although sickle cell can also kill people if they inherit it from both parents, so the net sense this mutation is actually one we don't want. If random mutations are essentially about genes being broke or blown up , then it follows they are not really increasing complexity and an efficient mechanism for the allow evolution.

Wow. What creationist blog did you rip that one off?

Logged

When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be bleedn obvious.

A zygote inherits from its parents the genes that code for the irreducibly complex systems that were previously designed.

Corrected it for you. They are not irreducibly complex - just because you think they are does not prove it - and thus there is no reason to assume they were designed.

Once you remove the creationist nonsense from your post (since intelligent design as posited by Behe and other Christian scientsts who argue for it is creationist in scope), see how much better it ends up being?

Quote from: DrTesla

In other words, the design of an IC system only needs to be done once in a species as it will be passed on genetically to future generations.

What I am talking about is how the IC system can to be in the first place.

And as you can see by watching the development of actual, living organisms, they don't initially need things like a circulatory system, or a respiratory system, or anything else. All they need is an environment that they can survive in while they build those things from the ground up.

That is my actual point. Something that is irreducibly complex, such as a mousetrap or a stone arch, does not just need a designer. It needs a builder, because it cannot construct itself. If it can construct itself, then it is not irreducibly complex, because otherwise it could not function with parts missing. Yet we see this with every organism that's ever lived - they function perfectly well without any of the so-called "irreducible" systems until they get the opportunity to make them. So, your objection has been met and overturned. Any other objections?

Quote from: DrTesla

What is it that you think that I've observed incorrectly? I have an insatiable thirst for truth and I am on a relentless pursuit of truth and I will seek truth in the very heart of darkness if I must, even if that means embracing the idea that we were designed by an intelligent being, as scary as that might be.

What do I think that you've observed incorrectly? Come on, this should be obvious. What I think you've observed incorrectly is the concept of irreducibly complex biological organisms. That's why I keep pressing you for evidence to show that you're correct, not just logical arguments. Logic doesn't prove anything in the real world.

Quote from: DrTesla

But if you think about it, if we are designed, then it should be easier to troubleshoot ourselves when we have problems (various diseases and disorders) once we understand the full genetic code behind our design. One day, shortly after a child is born, his entire genetic code could be essentially scanned for problems in the DNA, must like you use anti-virus software to locate viruses on your computer, and then the DNA could be repaired. Thus we would be about to prevent various disorders. It would be intelligent repair except in this case we are the intelligent agent not God.

Certainly. But the fact that we, as intelligent agents, will one day be able to understand and manipulate our own genetic code does not mean that an intelligent agent had to build the stuff from the get-go. You have to show that an intelligent agent did in fact create DNA to begin with. It isn't enough to claim that it is, or present logical arguments that it is. You have to find evidence to show that it is.

By the way, you just slipped up here, since you've claimed in the past that you don't know what the original "intelligent agent" was.

Quote from: DrTesla

So rather than fearing the idea of design simply because the idea of God scares you, we should embrace design because design should mae it easier for us to cure disease/disorders because their is a logic to it. If we aren't designed then we are left trying to figure out how all this random mutations lead to disease and there will be no logic to this.

Au contraire. If you or anyone could actually show real evidence that life on this planet was designed, I would not mind one bit, because the object of science is to discover truth. But I'm a skeptic, which means that I really do need that evidence. It isn't enough to just say, "well, I really think it was designed" or even to present logical arguments to support your argument. You need real, solid evidence that shows that it is.

And the other thing is, evolutionary theory does in fact explain genetic disorders and other diseases. Because evolutionary theory is logical as well. If it wasn't logical, it wouldn't have survived for the 150+ years since Darwin; at least, I hope you are not accusing every biologist who's done work on the theory of being unable to recognize an illogical idea. What you need to show is that 'design' explains the reality of life better than evolution through the use of evidence gathered from the real world. Simply saying, "it's irreducibly complex, and evolution can't produce something that's irreducibly complex, thus it must have been designed" doesn't prove a single solitary thing. Indeed, it actually makes it harder to understand how diseases and disorders could have come about, because we can't predict the actions of an intelligent being the way we can natural forces.

Logged

Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!" If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

So it was dishonest of you to say that scientists have a non scientific agenda. You knew it was not true.

The only people with an agenda are a minority of extremist Christians who think they can rope people into their religious beliefs by using pseudo science.

Your colleagues are going to be very disappointed with you that you have shown up their " intelligent design " and "irreducible complexity " as a complete hoax. They also won't be pleased that you are such an obvious spammer. They should choose someone more intelligent for online debates.

This kind of reminds of Michael Crighton's quip : "Everybody has an agenda, but me".

I don't see what is extremist or religious about asking how evolution can lead to an IC system. That sounds like challenging a scientific theory and science is essentially supposed to be about trying to poke holes in various theories and if it is a valid theory it should stand the test of time and challenges.

If a religious extremist is somebody talking about IC and the possibliy of design, that seems preferable to one that is hijacking planes and driving them into buildings and killing thousands of people.

Your post kind of proves my point about how talking about the origin and development of life attracts people who are not really interested in science itself but they are interested in the implications : there is a god or there isn't a god , thus it essentially becomes a proxy war between Christians and Darwins atheists.

One shouldn't allow their fear of a "God" prevent them from embracing the reality that parts of us must have been designed, if not all of us. We are here regardless of if were were designed or evolved so what is there to fear. To assume "God" is evil in s ome way is probably an irrational fear.

You have been told by many people that irreducible complexity is not scientific. It does not challenge any scientific idea. It has no purpose except a religious one.

At least you admit that religious people are dangerous. I could almost give you a +1 for that.

Or, put another way: if IC existed in life, it would tell us nothing more about God, than the puzzle of why the universe exists at all.

Why the universe exists is baffling.

Pretending we have found unevolved units in life, tells us nothing about any creator, besides that he may be sympathetic or unsympathetic towards life. This is only marginally more comforting or instructive than the observation that he designed us to have tapeworms and VD.

The reason why Behe and other retards are shitty about evolution, is that one of their pretend toys have been taken away, and they are desperately trying to get it back again. The reason they are desperate, is that they have no other evidence for a god, apparently. If they did have any evidence, then the desperation would not be so great.

Logged

When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be bleedn obvious.

Doc, After 27 pages, I'm wondering if your view has changed? It seems your argument may have become one where you are most interested in accusing atheist thinking of being closed minded. Is that so? I believe we here would all disagree strongly. We are only interested in the truth.

Are you resigned to the fact that the human eye is too complex to be designed by natural selection over time? I wasn't sure if we had moved on.

Evolution can be used as an explanation for complex structures if we can imagine a series of small, intermediate steps leading from the simple to the complex. Further, because natural selection will act on every one of those intermediate steps, no single one can be justified on the basis of the final structure toward which it may be leading. Each step must stand on its own as an improvement that confers an advantage on the organism that possesses it.

Quote

This step-by-step criterion can easily be applied to a complex organ like the eye. We begin with the simplest possible case: a small animal with a few light-sensitive cells. We could then ask, at each stage, whether natural selection would favor the incremental changes that are shown, knowing that if it would not, the final structure could not have evolved, no matter how beneficial. Starting with the simplest light-sensing device, a single photoreceptor cell, it is possible to draw a series of incremental changes that would lead directly to the lens-and-retina eye. None of the intermediate stages are unreasonable, since each requires nothing more than an incremental change in structure: an increase in cell number, a change in surface curvature, a slight increase in transparency.

What I am talking about is how the IC system can to be in the first place.

What is it that you think that I've observed incorrectly?

The thing about a delusion is that the event itself is not badly observed, it is the conclusion, drawn from the event that is irrational.

If we take something that is designed - an expensive radio - then if we remove a transistor or two, the radio will not work. However, we can easily build a primitive radio with a crystal and no transistors at all.

So it is with 'complex' body parts. They have arrived in that state through endless years of evolution. So we must look at the original primitive organ in its most basic form and realise that cells have altered slightly over time and once this new state is reached, there is a further change that is only possible from this new state. Thus a primitive unit becomes a complex unit. The complex unit is now very efficient but requires all its parts.

Quote

So rather than fearing the idea of design simply because the idea of God scares you,

I don't think this is an issue. The issue is people like yourself who will put forward specious arguments that we should believe a lie so that you can then reveal that the "designer" is none other than your invisible friend who wants out soul (whatever that is.)

Your thinking, and that of those like you is mired in the early 19th century. You have, I suppose, accepted other scientific theories, teachings and explanations, but you are stuck on this one. The truth of the matter scares you as you think that this means the end of your god.

It probably doesn't. Even the Catholic Church accepts evolution from the most primitive form of life - something very, very basic evolved by chance to the myriad species we now have without any magic help.

Quote

we should embrace design because design should mae it easier for us to cure disease/disorders because their is a logic to it.

“Wandering in a vast forest at night, I have only a faint light to guide me. A stranger appears and says to me: 'My friend, you should blow out your candle in order to find your way more clearly.' This stranger is a theologian.”-- Diderot, c1762

Quote

If we aren't designed then we are left trying to figure out how all this random mutations lead to disease and there will be no logic to this.

And if we are designed, surely only God knows how this was done and He has never told us how to cure any disease, has he?

Every now and again, I think of fundamentalist idiots, and I think that they should not be able to benefit from anything at all that has been achieved in the face of their ignorance. We should say, "OK, live in the 19th century." Darwinian theory will then ensure the survival of the fittest and the fundamentalist line will die out.

« Last Edit: October 26, 2013, 12:23:31 PM by Graybeard »

Logged

Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Most random mutations are actually detrimental to the organism thus rather then leading to more complexity and evolution to other species, it leads to offspring who are have some problems. Genes are essentially being broke or blown up in most random mutations, which could possibly lead to some trait that is advantageous, such as the sickle cell in people can prevent people from getting malaria, although sickle cell can also kill people if they inherit it from both parents, so the net sense this mutation is actually one we don't want. If random mutations are essentially about genes being broke or blown up , then it follows they are not really increasing complexity and an efficient mechanism for the allow evolution.

Want to know something amazing?

You have about 25 (approx...) mutations that are what makes you, you.

So according to you, at-least one of them must be detrimental.

If this were the case, every living species would have been wiped out from their own genetic code messing up.

Fortunately, it is not the case, and that random mutations are mostly harmless.

Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

So, if I understand Dr. Tesla's last attempt, we have gotten to the point where the only IC system is the DNA? Which of course, is the basics of genetics, a field that would not even exist if not for the TOE?

Dr Tesla, you are a slippery as an eel. We have pointed out that every biological organism is made up of simpler parts, each stage complete and functional or it could not survive. Adaptation and flexibility make for better survival, so we would expect to see signs of adaptation, like fins becoming feet and then maybe fins again. Whales have foot bones that they don't need, suggesting that whales evolved from large land mammals with feet, something like a hippo. But you say that the vestigial foot bones in whales are not real evidence because....I am not sure. Scientists were looking at fossils of extinct animals that could be the ancestor of both hippos and whales. You don't agree with fossils, I suppose. But you do agree with DNA. Well, now you are in a bind, because we have DNA evidence that whales and hippos probably did evolve from an earlier common ancestor. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090318153803.htm

Now I know what you are planning to do with this brief article, if you even bother to read it. You will say that the scientists disagree with each other, and that means they don't know what they are talking about. They say careful things like "may" and "probably" meaning they don't have 100% certainty, so they are wrong. You have done this before. You will look for any sign that there is doubt or controversy between the scientists, to show that they don't know what they are talking about and are just making sh!t up. If they are not 100% sure, they must be 100% wrong. Because they are afraid of god.[1]

But here's the thing, Dr. Tesla. You seem to think that science is a big fan cub where everyone rallies around to protect Darwin or Newton or someone because we all like them so much. (Don't do any experiments that might show that Darwin was wrong! Bad scientist!) However, that is the opposite of how science works. Science is not about everyone agreeing blindly with someone famous or smart. Science is about testing stuff to see if it seems to be true or not. And tests only suggest that you are right. In science you don't get 100% proof of anything. Ever.

Darwin's friends and colleagues took his ideas about evolution apart. They raised questions that showed where his ideas might be wrong. And many of those questions led to other very important discoveries, like DNA. Other evolutionary scientists have been harder on the TOE than anyone. No scientist reads the Origin of Species and memorizes passages. Unquestioning acceptance of authority is religion, not science.

Science is about what seems to be true, based on observations, tests, and evidence. Notice I did not say proof. With science you may never get 100% final proof of anything. Science is always contingent on what someone else might discover tomorrow. Evolutionary theory seems to be true so far. We have hundreds of applications and thousands of pieces of evidence in support of the theory. But it could be overturned. After 150 years it is unlikely, but it could happen.

If you want to challenge an existing scientific theory, you have to show your work. That means you have to have something testable. You have to make up a test, experiment, procedure. And you have to run the test. Then other people look at your stuff and try to show where you went wrong. This is part of the process of doing science. Your friends are supposed to attack you when you present your findings-- science is not a feel-good party, support group or private club. The ID/IC people have not shown their work.

If scientists were really motivated by fear of god, why would they bother doing science? Why not become religious leaders instead? Shorter, cheaper education, much easier life, way more money. I guess scientists are just too honest.

Logged

When all of Cinderella's finery changed back at midnight, why didn't the shoes disappear? What's up with that?

If the bible is their only collection of research findings, than they are in more trouble than they even know.....Can you imagine someone standing up at a science convention and trying to present the bible as their evidence of anything? And then refusing to accept any challenges, objections or questions? Like I said, that is religion, not science.

Logged

When all of Cinderella's finery changed back at midnight, why didn't the shoes disappear? What's up with that?

Most random mutations are actually detrimental to the organism thus rather then leading to more complexity and evolution to other species, it leads to offspring who are have some problems.

Well that's just not accurate.

Most "detrimental" mutations just kill stuff - dead - so we don't have to worry about them anymore. We don't even get to notice the lethal mutations except when foetuses spontaneously abort and there's an unsightly clump of tissue we need to deal with (and those are mostly just incinerated without any study, or eaten by hyenas, or bugs). So we can't even list most of the lethal mutations because they were ... well ... er ... lethal. Erased!

Lucky there's fecundity - so we do get sufficient viable genome copies to move ahead with - their fitness allowed them to be selected by life. The fit enough ones are carrying any slightly deleterious mutations that weren't lethal and whole bunch of neutral mutations (some which can later be turned into something complex and novel by adding more mutations on top - yes that's one source of complexity) and occasionally an immediately beneficial mutation.

See, it's actually a numbers game. And like most things in biology that involve statistics the goddidit brigade have been coached to treat it as inadmissible thought. Else they'd have to explain what happens to all the souls in non-viable zygotes

If random mutations are essentially about genes being broke or blown up , then it follows they are not really increasing complexity and an efficient mechanism for the allow evolution.

The genes that are "broke or blown up" are mostly weeded out by ...well ... er ... death and/or ... well ... er ... just not being there for breeding season.

What a nong you are!?

Your propaganda sources are so dumb it's just not funny. And to think this stupidity you guys preach is the product of Christian tithe money that could have given starving children food and clean water. But here it is in all its glory doing nothing else but fucking with the minds of ignorant folk who are unqualified to challenge it Sad.

Most random mutations are actually detrimental to the organism thus rather then leading to more complexity and evolution to other species, it leads to offspring who are have some problems.

The genes that are "broke or blown up" are mostly weeded out by ...well ... er ... death and/or ... well ... er ... just not being there for breeding season.

What a nong you are!?

That was my point, most mutations are harmful to the lifeform because the genes are essentially "blown up". Thus the lifeforms with this harmful mutation are selected against. You need mutations that are beneficial for natural selection to lead to more complexity. If most random mutations are selected against then there will be little net evolution.

Logged

"You want to know who just loves abortions? God loves abortions. He performs them all the time and not even for the money. " NoGodsForMe

"I wish it was men who got pregnant b/c we would squirt out these babies and go about our business. We don't have be divas on this stuff." DrTesla

That was my point, most mutations are harmful to the lifeform because the genes are essentially "blown up". Thus the lifeforms with this harmful mutation are selected against. You need mutations that are beneficial for natural selection to lead to more complexity. If most random mutations are selected against then there will be little net evolution.

Actually, most mutations are essentially neutral, not harmful. If most mutations were harmful, life probably wouldn't exist.

So, you have all these neutral mutations which don't seem to do anything meaningful. There's no selection pressure against them cause they don't do anything harmful, which means a lot of them end up getting conserved and passed on, and they also increase net complexity.

Logged

Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!" If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

That was my point, most mutations are harmful to the lifeform because the genes are essentially "blown up". Thus the lifeforms with this harmful mutation are selected against. You need mutations that are beneficial for natural selection to lead to more complexity. If most random mutations are selected against then there will be little net evolution.

You are moving the goalposts deep into creationist territory. We know that every offspring has a couple of mutations. I have a relative-in-law, who has autism and epilepsy, and it's reckoned to be a single point mutation..

To solve the problem of where all these random junk mutations go, you must involve God at all times. God must micromanage mutations, so that they are corrected prior to creating the next offspring. Or, alternatively, God could turbo-power natural selection, and make sure that only appropriate animals survive.

In the case of (1), you can show your case, by demonstrating that bad mutations magically disappear out of the gene pool at a greater rate than chance.In the case of (2), you can show that animals are dying, not by natural causes, but in suspicious circumstances.

The science openings are there for you.

Logged

When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be bleedn obvious.

Most random mutations are actually detrimental to the organism thus rather then leading to more complexity and evolution to other species, it leads to offspring who are have some problems.

The genes that are "broke or blown up" are mostly weeded out by ...well ... er ... death and/or ... well ... er ... just not being there for breeding season.

What a nong you are!?

That was my point, most mutations are harmful to the lifeform because the genes are essentially "blown up". Thus the lifeforms with this harmful mutation are selected against. You need mutations that are beneficial for natural selection to lead to more complexity. If most random mutations are selected against then there will be little net evolution.

You are basically right-- and you have solved the problem in those two sentences. There is very little "net" evolution, if you are looking at one individual and its offspring. In one generation there is hardly any selection, although as you know, offspring are generally slightly different from the parent.

But over hundreds of generations there will be more selection and more visible change. Given millions of years, there can be a lot of change, if the environment changes enough. That is why evolution takes so long to show any visible change, ie in the phenotype. The real deal evolution is going on at the level of the genotype where you can't see it unless you do genetic analysis.

In my African-American family, for example, both of my parents were light tan-skinned people. My oldest brother was as black as a person from Sudan. The two middle kids were lighter than either parent. And the youngest was darker than either parent but not nearly as dark as the oldest sib.

Where did all that color difference come from? Why don't we all have the exact same skin color as our parents? At least one of my parents had the genes for very dark skin, even though it did not show up in their own physical appearance. I have forgotten the basic bio stuff about alleles and all that, so someone here can correct me.

Logged

When all of Cinderella's finery changed back at midnight, why didn't the shoes disappear? What's up with that?

That was my point, most mutations are harmful to the lifeform because the genes are essentially "blown up". Thus the lifeforms with this harmful mutation are selected against. You need mutations that are beneficial for natural selection to lead to more complexity. If most random mutations are selected against then there will be little net evolution.

Are you kidding me?Did you, on purpose ignore the fact that you have about twenty five random mutation, and that every one of them is harmless?

The fact is most mutations, from non mutagen sources, are harmless.

Another thing you fail to realize, is that it usually takes many generations to get enough mutations for a beneficial genetic code.

You will never get a species that "magically" gets night vision in one generation for example.

Logged

Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

You need mutations that are beneficial for natural selection to lead to more complexity.

NO! You don't have the full picture. Your wilful ignorance is holding you back How many times do I have to tell you about gene duplication and redundancy. You really should have worked with me back in replies #306 - 308. Now your own pride condemns you to a mental blockage. You are denying yourself free access to logic and knowledge - embarrassing yourself and your cause.

C'mon, guys, I'm trying to work with this pendejo. He wouldn't still be here if not for some part of him wanting to learn. Pick the one speck out that is kinda true from what he says and go from there. He's like a fish on a line. Ya gotta play him.

Logged

When all of Cinderella's finery changed back at midnight, why didn't the shoes disappear? What's up with that?

Actually, this is bit of a fallacy. It becomes correct if you rephrase it as: "Most mutations that persist in living individuals are neutral."

The lethal mutations are simply gone very soon after they happen - not there for us to catalogue. For obvious practical reasons (DNA extraction) we usually only study individuals that were viable.

No, actually it's not a fallacy. If even a sizable percentage of mutations were harmful enough to be lethal, that would have severe consequences for life on Earth. I doubt the number of outright lethal mutations is even as high as 1%, though as I'm not a biologist, that's merely an educated guess. Even if you throw in all of the merely harmful mutations (meaning, they would impact the organism's ability to survive long enough to reproduce), I doubt the number goes above 10% or so.

Logged

Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!" If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

That was my point, most mutations are harmful to the lifeform because the genes are essentially "blown up". Thus the lifeforms with this harmful mutation are selected against. You need mutations that are beneficial for natural selection to lead to more complexity. If most random mutations are selected against then there will be little net evolution.

Actually, most mutations are essentially neutral, not harmful. If most mutations were harmful, life probably wouldn't exist.

So, you have all these neutral mutations which don't seem to do anything meaningful. There's no selection pressure against them cause they don't do anything harmful, which means a lot of them end up getting conserved and passed on, and they also increase net complexity.

jaime

this is incorrect. Neutral mutations are passed on but neutral mutations would not lead to gradual change because they are not helpfu to the lifeforml. Neutral essentially means they have no impact on the status quo.

Logged

"You want to know who just loves abortions? God loves abortions. He performs them all the time and not even for the money. " NoGodsForMe

"I wish it was men who got pregnant b/c we would squirt out these babies and go about our business. We don't have be divas on this stuff." DrTesla

Most mutations are neutral. Nachman and Crowell estimate around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation in humans (2000). Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but the fraction which are beneficial is higher than usually though. An experiment with E. coli found that about 1 in 150 newly arising mutations and 1 in 10 functional mutations are beneficial (Perfeito et al. 2007).

The harmful mutations do not survive long, and the beneficial mutations survive much longer, so when you consider only surviving mutations, most are beneficial.

Beneficial mutations are commonly observed. They are common enough to be problems in the cases of antibiotic resistance in disease-causing organisms and pesticide resistance in agricultural pests (e.g., Newcomb et al. 1997; these are not merely selection of pre-existing variation.) They can be repeatedly observed in laboratory populations (Wichman et al. 1999). Other examples include the following:Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon (Prijambada et al. 1995).Plant breeders have used mutation breeding to induce mutations and select the beneficial ones (FAO/IAEA 1977).Certain mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS (Dean et al. 1996; Sullivan et al. 2001) or to heart disease (Long 1994; Weisgraber et al. 1983).A mutation in humans makes bones strong (Boyden et al. 2002).Transposons are common, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial diversity (Moffat 2000).In vitro mutation and selection can be used to evolve substantially improved function of RNA molecules, such as a ribozyme (Wright and Joyce 1997).

Whether a mutation is beneficial or not depends on environment. A mutation that helps the organism in one circumstance could harm it in another. When the environment changes, variations that once were counteradaptive suddenly become favored. Since environments are constantly changing, variation helps populations survive, even if some of those variations do not do as well as others. When beneficial mutations occur in a changed environment, they generally sweep through the population rapidly (Elena et al. 1996).

High mutation rates are advantageous in some environments. Hypermutable strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa are found more commonly in the lungs of cystic fibrosis patients, where antibiotics and other stresses increase selection pressure and variability, than in patients without cystic fibrosis (Oliver et al. 2000).

Note that the existence of any beneficial mutations is a falsification of the young-earth creationism model (Morris 1985, 13).

Logged

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

You are basically right-- and you have solved the problem in those two sentences. There is very little "net" evolution, if you are looking at one individual and its offspring. In one generation there is hardly any selection, although as you know, offspring are generally slightly different from the parent.

But over hundreds of generations there will be more selection and more visible change. Given millions of years, there can be a lot of change, if the environment changes enough. That is why evolution takes so long to show any visible change, ie in the phenotype. The real deal evolution is going on at the level of the genotype where you can't see it unless you do genetic analysis.

No, there is little net evolution, because in every generation, most of the mutations are negative (thus selected against) or neutral (ignored). They've done experiments in labs with bacteria which reproduce very quickly and there is little net evolution over the generations. For the few positive random mutations, it seems each generation would need to have a postive random mutation that builds on the positive random mutation of the previous generation and that defies the law of probabilty. It actually seems like a negative random mutation is just as likely to negate a postive mutation from the original generation.

Logged

"You want to know who just loves abortions? God loves abortions. He performs them all the time and not even for the money. " NoGodsForMe

"I wish it was men who got pregnant b/c we would squirt out these babies and go about our business. We don't have be divas on this stuff." DrTesla

Most random mutations are actually detrimental to the organism thus rather then leading to more complexity and evolution to other species, it leads to offspring who are have some problems.

The genes that are "broke or blown up" are mostly weeded out by ...well ... er ... death and/or ... well ... er ... just not being there for breeding season.

What a nong you are!?

That was my point, most mutations are harmful to the lifeform because the genes are essentially "blown up". Thus the lifeforms with this harmful mutation are selected against. You need mutations that are beneficial for natural selection to lead to more complexity. If most random mutations are selected against then there will be little net evolution.

You are basically right-- and you have solved the problem in those two sentences. There is very little "net" evolution, if you are looking at one individual and its offspring. In one generation there is hardly any selection, although as you know, offspring are generally slightly different from the parent.

But over hundreds of generations there will be more selection and more visible change. Given millions of years, there can be a lot of change, if the environment changes enough. That is why evolution takes so long to show any visible change, ie in the phenotype. The real deal evolution is going on at the level of the genotype where you can't see it unless you do genetic analysis.

In my African-American family, for example, both of my parents were light tan-skinned people. My oldest brother was as black as a person from Sudan. The two middle kids were lighter than either parent. And the youngest was darker than either parent but not nearly as dark as the oldest sib.

Where did all that color difference come from? Why don't we all have the exact same skin color as our parents? At least one of my parents had the genes for very dark skin, even though it did not show up in their own physical appearance. I have forgotten the basic bio stuff about alleles and all that, so someone here can correct me.

Your example is one of microevolution, or variation of a trait within a species, due to natural selection. We've been talking about macroevolution, cross species evolution which is a bigger (unproven and improbable) challenge for Darwin evolution theory.

But I found this on a website, I think maybe a creationist website, so take it with a grain of salt, regarding how the different skin colors can to be:

As early humans moved into hot, open environments in search of food and water, one big challenge was keeping cool. The adaptation that was favored involved an increase in the number of sweat glands on the skin while at the same time reducing the amount of body hair. With less hair, perspiration could evaporate more easily and cool the body more efficiently. But this less-hairy skin was a problem because it was exposed to a very strong sun, especially in lands near the equator. Since strong sun exposure damages the body, the solution was to evolve skin that was permanently dark so as to protect against the sun’s more damaging rays.

Melanin, the skin's brown pigment, is a natural sunscreen that protects tropical peoples from the many harmful effects of ultraviolet (UV) rays. UV rays can, for example, strip away folic acid, a nutrient essential to the development of healthy fetuses. Yet when a certain amount of UV rays penetrates the skin, it helps the human body use vitamin D to absorb the calcium necessary for strong bones. This delicate balancing act explains why the peoples that migrated to colder geographic zones with less sunlight developed lighter skin color. As people moved to areas farther from the equator with lower UV levels, natural selection favored lighter skin which allowed UV rays to penetrate and produce essential vitamin D. The darker skin of peoples who lived closer to the equator was important in preventing folate deficiency. Measures of skin reflectance, a way to quantify skin color by measuring the amount of light it reflects, in people around the world support this idea. While UV rays can cause skin cancer, because skin cancer usually affects people after they have had children, it likely had little effect on the evolution of skin color because evolution favors changes that improve reproductive success.

There is also a third factor which affects skin color: coastal peoples who eat diets rich in seafood enjoy this alternate source of vitamin D. That means that some Arctic peoples, such as native peoples of Alaska and Canada, can afford to remain dark-skinned even in low UV areas. In the summer they get high levels of UV rays reflected from the surface of snow and ice, and their dark skin protects them from this reflected light.

Logged

"You want to know who just loves abortions? God loves abortions. He performs them all the time and not even for the money. " NoGodsForMe

"I wish it was men who got pregnant b/c we would squirt out these babies and go about our business. We don't have be divas on this stuff." DrTesla